brightspace_get_assignment_rubrics

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it enumerates the returned sub-resources (criteria, levels, points), scopes results to 'visible' assignments (an access constraint), and warns that responses may need completeness/warning checks. The only notable omission is pagination behavior, despite limit/offset parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the object of the call front-loaded, no restatement of the tool name. The closing clause 'Check completeness and warnings' is a slightly awkward directive and would read better as a description of response fields, but nothing is truly wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what comes back (criteria, achievement levels, points) and warns about warnings/partial data. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. The missing pieces are pagination semantics and the dependency on an assignment-listing call to obtain folderId.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so courseId, folderId, limit and offset are already fully documented with patterns and defaults. The description contributes only the qualifier that the assignment must be 'visible', a mild semantic constraint on folderId, and says nothing about pagination or ID formats. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read rubrics') plus the scope ('associated with a visible assignment') and names the payload ('criteria, achievement levels and points'). An agent can tell this is rubric retrieval distinct from siblings like brightspace_get_assignments or brightspace_get_grades, though it never explicitly says how it relates to those tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the tool to call when it needs rubric detail for a specific assignment. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and nothing tells the agent that folderId must come from brightspace_get_assignments first, which is the main prerequisite for success.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.